kirpi on "Micro and macro"

kirpi — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:58:57 +0000

A growing list of tutorials for macro photography fans can be found at this page
http://www.kirpi.it/Photo/List-of-best-tutorials-to-learn-creative-macro-photography

kirpi on "Micro and macro"

kirpi — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:34:49 +0000

Photomicrography reveals details which can’t be seen with the naked eye, whereas macro photography is more of a simple close-up approach.
If you ask, then probably you could be interested in the latter, which is attainable with just common camera bodies and regular lenses, there included point-and-shoot cameras. In order to shoot photomicrography pictures, instead, you are supposed to use special devices such as microscopes.

I think that you should check this list of essential tutorials to get started with macro photography http://www.kirpi.it/Photo/Macro-photography#tutorials
You will discover a lot of hints, tips and advice, as well as other related articles and stunning images for your inspiration.

Daniela on "Motion blur"

Daniela — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:21:20 +0000

Thanks for your valuable advice. You gave me some good ideas and directions, tricks I did not know!

Annina Trepin on "Micro and macro"

Annina Trepin — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:53:28 +0000

What is the difference between photomicrography and macrophotography?

kirpi on "Motion blur"

kirpi — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:39:01 +0000

Blurring a moving subject is even too easy :-)
It is closely related to shutter speed. Eight times out of then you get what you want (or what you don't want :-) just by setting a slow shutter speed and shooting straight.
Mind not to move your camera, or the background will be blurred as well.

There are some creative variations to this basic approach. One of these is to use a strobe and freeze your subject just before closing the shutter. This particular way of shooting is known as second-curtain slow syncing.
Look at this picture:

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/rorymunro/3396107820/]

The blurred subject is very effective in giving a sense of speed, while the crisp image of the same subject renders all the details.

Of course also panning can be coupled with the above "slow sync" approach, and this is an example:

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/staipale/3937396051/]

You get:

details (with a flash)
slight subject movement (with a slow shutter speed)
blurred background (by panning your camera)

All on the same photograph.

Don't be afraid to experiment!

Daniela on "Motion blur"

Daniela — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:52:41 +0000

What if I want to give the opposite effect of blurring the baby?

Tanja on "How to watermark images?"

Tanja — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:19:23 +0000

It might be illuminating to look at some watermarked pictures.
There are really hundreds of different ways to approach the matter.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/squareoflife/4052732573/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollyfarrell/436882757/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/roadsidepictures/764497278/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/orangeacid/2849626022/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2bleg/3547141747/

Which way would you suggest?

kirpi on "How to watermark images?"

kirpi — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:52:43 +0000

Watermarks can be useful to protect from theft, inform about copyright data, and also expose your name or drive people to your own website.
But visible watermarks over photographs are disturbing. Really.

What about the idea of adding your watermark in a framed image?
I think it is fine.

As for really protecting shared images, you'd better adopt steganography.

kirpi on "Old film"

kirpi — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:22:54 +0000

Latent images on film do degrade, definitely.
Nonetheless, there is no standard reply to your question. It all much depends on many variables: kind of film (B/W, color, slide,...), speed (Iso number), quality (professional versus consumer), storage temperature, and more...
All in all I am personally confident that you will get usable results from that film.
On the average, you can expect a drop in contrast and some veil: tell your story to the processing lab, as they can help with an ad hoc chemical baths service.

Good luck :-)

Zuzu on "Old film"

Zuzu — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:56:12 +0000

Hello everybody,
I found a roll of exposed film left inside my old camera, yesterday. I think I used it last some 5 years ago. It remained inside my wardrobe closed in a box. If I develop it, can I see something? So, I don't want to pay processing for nothing. I wonder how long is possible to conservate film without developing?
Thank you!

Soon

Zuzu

Tanja on "DxO"

Tanja — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:54:57 +0000

Version 6 is now available for free testing, although Mac users should wait until early 2010 and Canon PowerShot G11 owners even more, I'm afraid.
Good news nonetheless!

kirpi on "Motion blur"

kirpi — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:25:42 +0000

Motion blur is not necessarily evil. Instead, it can be used to convey a positive feeling at times.
One of the best approach is to set a moderately fast shutter speed, and then follow your subject. Do not be afraid to move while following the kid: walk, run, swing, pan your camera, do whatever you can to keep your subject steady within the frame.
Such panning will result in an acceptable level of sharpness for your subject, whereas all the rest of the image will appear severely blurred.
Look at this example:

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/psycho-pics/3620435065/]

Remember that sharpness is not a value in itself.
Look at the girl's face: you do not need to get every single hair sharp and crisp. Joy and emotion are clearly visible on her smile and that is the good point.

Today, digital photography has an advantage over film: you can carelessly shoot even hundreds of photos and then just keep the ones that comes out fine, without thinking of possible costs.

Daniela on "Motion blur"

Daniela — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:21:54 +0000

I'm photographing my lively kids. How to avoid motion blur?

kirpi on "Shooting at newspapers"

kirpi — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:42:34 +0000

This is a case where DxO software can help a lot.

Tanja on "Store digital images"

Tanja — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:51:27 +0000

Regular hard disk drives are the best way for archiving tons of digital photographs. Have many of them and back up often.

Bruno K. on "Store digital images"

Bruno K. — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:16:45 +0000

How do I store my digital photographs?
I have too many of them!

Lisa on "How to post my images to this forum"

Lisa — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:29:55 +0000

Testing large picture resize:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/1450305677/

Evita on "How to watermark images?"

Evita — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:19:37 +0000

How to watermark images, so that they do not get stolen on the internet?

Tanja on "Landscapes"

Tanja — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:53:37 +0000

Bruno, there is no specific lens for landscapes.
You can create good pictures with any focal length, from most extreme wide-angle to longest focal length available.

kirpi on "DxO"

kirpi — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:32:22 +0000

You are probably asking about the DxO Optics Pro piece of software: well, it really is a noteworthy achievement in image enhancement.
While other utilities can do similar things (for aberrations think to PTLens for Windows or LensFix CI for the Mac; for noise think to Dfine or Noise Ninja), DxO Optics Pro has an impressive power of its own.
I suggest you download the trial version and see what DxO can do to your pictures, automatically.
If your equipment is included in the range of cameras and lenses that DxO supports, you will be amazed by your own photographs!

Andrea Sullach on "Any alternative to Photoshop?"

Andrea Sullach — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:40:20 +0000

Just to resume the original question: yes, Photoshop is surely quite ahead in front of any competitor but, as kirpi noted, unless you really need it for some reason, other software is more that good enough.
Gimp is quite fine. I agree with Lisa. There is also a USB flash drive Portable Gimp ready for download. No need to install it, and you can have it with you anywhere :-)

Andrea Sullach on "DxO"

Andrea Sullach — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:00:09 +0000

Does anybody know DxO software?

Andrea Sullach on "UV filter"

Andrea Sullach — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:31:15 +0000

I have UV filters screwed in the front of my old film cameras lenses.
Are they still useful today in digital photography?

kirpi on "Any alternative to Photoshop?"

kirpi — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:58:04 +0000

As a general rule, each job requires a set a specific tools, and this is true for photography as well. So, there is no one single advice for all.

If you are overly serious about your photographs and shoot a lot of images in raw format, chances are that you will adopt Lightroom along with the complete Nik software collection. Indeed, Lightroom is expensive: you might try and download the latest Lightroom 3 beta for free (it will be disabled once the stable version is made available) or you can have fun and test the interesting blueMarine project for your workflow.

If, instead, you just want to "try and retouch" you images, I suggest you definitely start with Gimp, available under Linux, Mac and Windows, as it is the best multi-purpose, flexible and easy to approach image editing software around, with scripting capabilities and lots of plug-ins. Also, many tutorials for Photoshop can also be used with Gimp.

Although Gimp is planned to eventually work with high bit-depth and non-destructive editing, if your need is to handle images deeper than 8-bit (which is the case for black and white photographs) then CinePaint is probably a better choice right now.

Daniela on "Selective focus"

Daniela — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:29:03 +0000

Okay, thanks to both. I'll do a little test to see if I understood.

Angelina on "Any alternative to Photoshop?"

Angelina — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:40:07 +0000

Why, Lisa?

Bruno K. on "Landscapes"

Bruno K. — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:46:31 +0000

Which focal length is best suited for landscapes?

Lisa on "Any alternative to Photoshop?"

Lisa — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:51:27 +0000

True there is a long list for you to choose from, but I would start with Gimp.

Evita on "Selective focus"

Evita — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:24:34 +0000

The key point to selective focusing is a limited depth of field, which is influenced by the aperture settings and the magnification factor, the latter being influenced in turn by subject distance and focal length.
In plainer words, the wider the aperture and the bigger the subject appears on your focusing screen, the shallower the depth of field and as a result the more evident the difference between in-focus and out-of-focus areas. That is the way to selective focusing.

How to accomplish this in automatic cameras may differ from device to device. Mind that automatic cameras often still have some manual or semi-manual modes.
As also Andrea suggested, give a look at you camera handbook. And please post here again when in doubt.

Andrea Sullach on "Selective focus"

Andrea Sullach — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:19:34 +0000

I'm not sure I understand you question. A few general points:

a) As a rule, pressing the shutter button halfway triggers the autofocus. Once the focus is set, feel free to move your camera before releasing the shutter.

b) The less light available, the more the lens will be set to a wide aperture, thus allowing for a wider out of focus area and enhancing selective focusing.

c) Most cameras have special scene modes which help you in obtaining specific results. As a start, please look for a pictograph similar to this one, which should be available on most cameras:

d) Do not forget to study you camera manual ;-)

Andrea Sullach on "Bokeh"

Andrea Sullach — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:59:52 +0000

It is a rather recent term, introduced some ten years ago by adapting and transliterating the Japanese word ぼけ meaning blur. Not that there was a real need for such a new word: it just refers to the out of focus area of the image. Nothing more. Apparently though, most people has started paying attention to such areas just after a specific word was created for them. Which sounds odd :-)

Angelina on "Bokeh"

Angelina — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:12:21 +0000

What does the word Bokeh mean? I read it many times but cannot really understand it.
It is not English, is it?

Andrea Sullach on "Any alternative to Photoshop?"

Andrea Sullach — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:08:16 +0000

Another one you might want give a look at is IrfanView. You can pair it with a Gimp for effectively handling your photographs.

Daniela on "Selective focus"

Daniela — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:56:42 +0000

How do I focus on a subject in the foreground and blur the background with an automatic camera?

Lisa on "Any alternative to Photoshop?"

Lisa — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:15:14 +0000

GIMP is the answer. Open-source and a whole community eager to help you. Try it!